He probably would have lost some of his slams during his peak years but he probably would have won more during his post prime years instead. This is assuming that their games is still successful during the faster courts, which is unlikely.

Federer would have more. Feds prime is better than any of those. The surface at AO and uso would suit fed way better. And now theyd all be 31 and Since nobody new is better, fed would still rack up slams.

Federer would likely have won 20 by the time he retired. People underrate Prime Hewitt, Prime Roddick, Prime Nalbandian and especially Prime Safin a lot. It was Federer's ridiculously high level of play, which has never come close to being matched, which made them all look bad. Those are some seriously talented players. Safin when on was a better player than Djokovic ever was or will be. My guess, if all 4 were aged the same :

Aged 19
Australian Open : X
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : X
US Open : X

Aged 20
Australian Open : X
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : X
US Open : Djokovic

Aged 21
Australian Open : Djokovic
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Nadal
US Open : Murray

Aged 22
Australian Open : Nadal
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Nadal
US Open : X

Aged 23
Australian Open : Federer
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Federer
US Open : Federer

Aged 24
Australian Open : Djokovic
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Federer
US Open : Federer

Aged 25
Australian Open : Federer
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Federer
US Open : Federer

Aged 26
Australian Open : Djokovic
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Nadal
US Open : Murray

Aged 27
Australian Open : Federer
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Federer
US Open : Federer

Aged 28
Australian Open : Federer
French Open : Federer
Wimbledon : Federer
US Open : Federer

Aged 29
Australian Open : Federer
French Open : Federer
Wimbledon : X
US Open : Federer

Aged 30
Australian Open : Federer
French Open : Federer
Wimbledon : Federer
US Open : X

Come to think of it, he'd likely finish with over 20 Grand Slams. Post-prime Federer could've beaten the field in his prime, he was unfortunate he couldn't use his prime against Nadal's and Djokovic's. Honestly, he would have murdered them outside of their best surfaces more times than not.

Federer would likely have won 20 by the time he retired. People underrate Prime Hewitt, Prime Roddick, Prime Nalbandian and especially Prime Safin a lot. It was Federer's ridiculously high level of play, which has never come close to being matched, which made them all look bad. Those are some seriously talented players. Safin when on was a better player than Djokovic ever was or will be. My guess, if all 4 were aged the same :

Aged 19
Australian Open : X
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : X
US Open : X

Aged 20
Australian Open : X
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : X
US Open : Djokovic

Aged 21
Australian Open : Djokovic
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Nadal
US Open : Murray

Aged 22
Australian Open : Nadal
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Nadal
US Open : X

Aged 23
Australian Open : Federer
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Federer
US Open : Federer

Aged 24
Australian Open : Djokovic
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Federer
US Open : Federer

Aged 25
Australian Open : Federer
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Federer
US Open : Federer

Aged 26
Australian Open : Djokovic
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Nadal
US Open : Murray

Aged 27
Australian Open : Federer
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Federer
US Open : Federer

Aged 28
Australian Open : Federer
French Open : Federer
Wimbledon : Federer
US Open : Federer

Aged 29
Australian Open : Federer
French Open : Federer
Wimbledon : X
US Open : Federer

Aged 30
Australian Open : Federer
French Open : Federer
Wimbledon : Federer
US Open : X

Come to think of it, he'd likely finish with over 20 Grand Slams. Post-prime Federer could've beaten the field in his prime, he was unfortunate he couldn't use his prime against Nadal's and Djokovic's. Honestly, he would have murdered them outside of their best surfaces more times than not.

Click to expand...

Come on man. You think Fed would have won 3 slams in a calendar year 5 times + the CYGS? That just crazy.

About the same, what slams he would have lost in his peak years he would have made up for at the age of say 29-31, I don't think any of the big 4 will play on the same level as Fed is at that age (if they would be at all still playing) and the rest of the field (especially the young guns which are laughable) is pretty lacking.

He would also have a much better chance of winning more than one FO given the chance of Novak landing in Nadal's half and beating him before the final and my personal belief that say 29 year old Fed who showed up in 2011 FO would have a much better chance of beating 29 year old Nadal than in of their other FO encounters.

He'd probably do almost as well during his peak years then make up for it when the others were at 30. He'd be #1 for sure, Djokovic and Nadal could end up taking each other out at numbers #2 and #3 and on the US open and Wimbledon surface peak Federer would have a clear advantage.

Come on man. You think Fed would have won 3 slams in a calendar year 5 times + the CYGS? That just crazy.

Click to expand...

Thats precisely along the lines of what Fed would have done had a certain Rafael Nadal not been there to stop him in 4 FO Finals + 1 semi final. Had it not been for Nadal, Federer would have made a complete mockery of the men's tour from 2005-2011 and would likely be sitting on 4 or 5 FO Titles plus 1 more Wimbledon & Aus Open.. around 23 Slams, plus 2 or 3 CYGS :shock:

he, Djokavic, Nadal and Murray were all the same age and all 4 started playing the tour at the same time when Federer did?

Would he still have 17 slams to his name?
Would he still be considered a GOAT contender?

Click to expand...

Well, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray would not be as good as they currently are for starters. Their frame of reference would be completely different. Federer was responsible for raising the standard, which would not have occurred to the degree it did, as early as it did if he were born later. He set a standard that others tried extremely hard to follow, but nobody blazed a trail for him. If they all came up at the same age, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray would not be able to draw confidence from beating him to the degree they can now. Federer would also be playing them with less pressure than he did, always being the favourite. And conversely they would be under more pressure.

The landscape would be completely different. However, I believe Federer would take them by surprise and start to move away from them at around the same age he did with Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Ferrero, Nalbandian and the rest of his generation. Federer was just a fellow contemporary when coming up with these players. No one predicted he would go on to dominate the game in the way he did. In fact, he was behind all these players early on and was considered a late bloomer when he did finally win Wimbledon at 21. So your question is sort of answered by what did happen.

To quote Agassi:

"The guy has single-handedly separated himself from a world-class field year after year after year in a way that's probably never been done."

I don’t think there would be a significant change in this pattern. A big part of Federer’s success is down to his very flexible talent and problem solving acumen, which would still be intact regardless of when he was born.

OP, the irony of your question is that he would counterintuitively have a chance at even more than 17. Here's why. Yes he may have lost a few of the one he has now. Eg. he may have one USO and possibly one AO. Don't see him losing any of his Wimbledon's especially given that he won even when all of the other 3 were in the draw at their best. Where he would gain more slams is at the FO, where Nadal would have surely lost more given Djokovic 2.0 and now Murray 2.0. Yes I know neither of those guys has beaten Nadal yet at FO, but it's only a matter of time. Moreover, all 3 of the other guys are much more susceptible to early round losses than prime Fed (see, Rosol, Wawrinka, etc). So Fed may well end up with 16 or 17 as he has now, or likely even more! But I doubt less than 16.

Federer would likely have won 20 by the time he retired. People underrate Prime Hewitt, Prime Roddick, Prime Nalbandian and especially Prime Safin a lot. It was Federer's ridiculously high level of play, which has never come close to being matched, which made them all look bad. Those are some seriously talented players. Safin when on was a better player than Djokovic ever was or will be. My guess, if all 4 were aged the same :

Aged 19
Australian Open : X
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : X
US Open : X

Aged 20
Australian Open : X
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : X
US Open : Djokovic

Aged 21
Australian Open : Djokovic
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Nadal
US Open : Murray

Aged 22
Australian Open : Nadal
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Nadal
US Open : X

Aged 23
Australian Open : Federer
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Federer
US Open : Federer

Aged 24
Australian Open : Djokovic
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Federer
US Open : Federer

Aged 25
Australian Open : Federer
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Federer
US Open : Federer

Aged 26
Australian Open : Djokovic
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Nadal
US Open : Murray

Aged 27
Australian Open : Federer
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Federer
US Open : Federer

Aged 28
Australian Open : Federer
French Open : Federer
Wimbledon : Federer
US Open : Federer

Aged 29
Australian Open : Federer
French Open : Federer
Wimbledon : X
US Open : Federer

Aged 30
Australian Open : Federer
French Open : Federer
Wimbledon : Federer
US Open : X

Come to think of it, he'd likely finish with over 20 Grand Slams. Post-prime Federer could've beaten the field in his prime, he was unfortunate he couldn't use his prime against Nadal's and Djokovic's. Honestly, he would have murdered them outside of their best surfaces more times than not.

Click to expand...

It looks impossible but if he could beat djoko2.0 at the french imagine what he would do to a 29-30 year old rafa and djoker, he would have won most of his slams after 27

Federer would have more. Feds prime is better than any of those. The surface at AO and uso would suit fed way better. And now theyd all be 31 and Since nobody new is better, fed would still rack up slams.

Click to expand...

exactly. If we're going to assume they were all Fed's age then we must also assume the courts would still be faster courts. Federer would probably have even more slams than he does now.

I generally find thread based on pure speculation...weird. But this is interesting.
I believe Fed will have the most, no doubt. In case they overlap for say 40 slams (10 years)+8 slams extra for Fed, assuming Murray and Novak will decline more than Fed. Roger can win around 5W,4US,4AO,1FO out of the 40 and 2W,2US out of next 8. So 18 slams around. Novak around 1W, 3US, 4AO, 2FO i.e. 10 slams. Rafa 7FO,1W,1AO,1US - 10 slams, so Murray ends up with 2W,1US,1-2AO i.e. 5 slams.
P.s. May be i am harsh on murray, but this is just speculation

I've often wondered what impact Fed would have had if he were born just a few years earlier and played at his '04-'07 level on the faster conditions. Fed/Sampras deserved to be more than a one-and-done rivalry. Fed/Agassi before 'Dre's downturn would also have been exciting.

This years AO final had little excitement, even less shot making, and tons of "retrieving". It was so boring even the announcers commented on how little was going on.

The best and most redeeming quality of this years final vs. last years is the fact that they played at a decent pace this year and the dang thing did not drag on for 6 hours.

Click to expand...

Fed at 31 still a threat and is #2 in the world against Nole/Murray/Nadal who are in their prime. If all 4 players are at the exact same age, Fed at 31 would have even greater chance or racking up slams. There's no way Nole/Murray/Nadal at 31 can compete with Federer, their game is too taxing to have that longevity. Also, Nadal is an early bloomer, which would give Fed better shot at winning RG by the time nadal's body break down. And then you have Nole could possibly take out nadal at RG due to the nightmare matchup, and Fed's chance to win RG is better when Nadal is knock out.

It's tricky and alot of variables come into play, but one can argue Fed would still have won 17 if not more.

Then again, if Brian Baker would have been born with the body of Federer or Djokovic -- he'd probably be one of the best tennis players ever. Certainly better than Djokovic and Nadal -- possibly as talented as Federer.

he, Djokavic, Nadal and Murray were all the same age and all 4 started playing the tour at the same time when Federer did?

Would he still have 17 slams to his name?
Would he still be considered a GOAT contender?

Click to expand...

This is a tough one, but I'm going to say that in this case, it really only helps Nadal. Because if you remember, a very young Rafa took a prime Fed to 5 sets in 3 straight Wimbly finals, before finally winning on the third try. If they were both in their prime, I feel like Rafa would have won at least 2/3 of those. The only one I feel like would have not won a slam, is Murray.

Fed at 31 still a threat and is #2 in the world against Nole/Murray/Nadal who are in their prime. If all 4 players are at the exact same age, Fed at 31 would have even greater chance or racking up slams. There's no way Nole/Murray/Nadal at 31 can compete with Federer, their game is too taxing to have that longevity. Also, Nadal is an early bloomer, which would give Fed better shot at winning RG by the time nadal's body break down. And then you have Nole could possibly take out nadal at RG due to the nightmare matchup, and Fed's chance to win RG is better when Nadal is knock out.

It's tricky and alot of variables come into play, but one can argue Fed would still have won 17 if not more.

Click to expand...

No way man. The Rafa of 2010-2012 is a much better player than the Rafa of 2005-2006 when he won his first RG's. I still think Rafa would have dominated RG, and perhaps Fed wouldn't even have won his lone FO title in 2009. I mean there's just no way you're going to say it would favor Fed to play a prime Rafa when prime Fed couldn't even beat a 19-22 year old Nadal @ the French...

I mean how the hell is prime Fed suppossed to beat prime Nadal on clay, when prime Fed couldn't even beat young Nadal on clay?

No way man. The Rafa of 2010-2012 is a much better player than the Rafa of 2005-2006 when he won his first RG's. I still think Rafa would have dominated RG, and perhaps Fed wouldn't even have won his lone FO title in 2009. I mean there's just no way you're going to say it would favor Fed to play a prime Rafa when prime Fed couldn't even beat a 19-22 year old Nadal @ the French...

I mean how the hell is prime Fed suppossed to beat prime Nadal on clay, when prime Fed couldn't even beat young Nadal on clay?

Click to expand...

Nadal is an early bloomer while Fed is a late bloomer. While at 31 Fed is still competitive, but at 5 years younger, nadal right now is falling apart is NOT playing. To sum that up, Nadal would have accomplished more in the early years, but Fed would picked up in the latter years and surpassed him. What Nadal won his first 3 or 4 RG would be during the pre-prime Fed, so those slams alone isn't effecting Fed's long years of dominating the field. Nadal fans even conceded Nadal was a better cc when he was young. So ther's window of oppotunities for Fed to rule the FO when Nadal start deteriorating. No way nadal at 30/31 is going to play at the same level.

Federer would likely have won 20 by the time he retired. People underrate Prime Hewitt, Prime Roddick, Prime Nalbandian and especially Prime Safin a lot. It was Federer's ridiculously high level of play, which has never come close to being matched, which made them all look bad. Those are some seriously talented players. Safin when on was a better player than Djokovic ever was or will be. My guess, if all 4 were aged the same :

Aged 19
Australian Open : X
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : X
US Open : X

Aged 20
Australian Open : X
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : X
US Open : Djokovic

Aged 21
Australian Open : Djokovic
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Nadal
US Open : Murray

Aged 22
Australian Open : Nadal
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Nadal
US Open : X

Aged 23
Australian Open : Federer
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Federer
US Open : Federer

Aged 24
Australian Open : Djokovic
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Federer
US Open : Federer

Aged 25
Australian Open : Federer
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Federer
US Open : Federer

Aged 26
Australian Open : Djokovic
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Nadal
US Open : Murray

Aged 27
Australian Open : Federer
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Federer
US Open : Federer

Aged 28
Australian Open : Federer
French Open : Federer
Wimbledon : Federer
US Open : Federer

Aged 29
Australian Open : Federer
French Open : Federer
Wimbledon : X
US Open : Federer

Aged 30
Australian Open : Federer
French Open : Federer
Wimbledon : Federer
US Open : X

Come to think of it, he'd likely finish with over 20 Grand Slams. Post-prime Federer could've beaten the field in his prime, he was unfortunate he couldn't use his prime against Nadal's and Djokovic's. Honestly, he would have murdered them outside of their best surfaces more times than not.

Click to expand...

This is just crazy. Fed just becomes unstoppable as the 4 would get older. This is tough to tell because we have not seen murray djoko or nadal play into their late 20s yet.